- (1.) Leave granted. This appeal by special leave is directed against an interim order passed by the High Court of Judicature, Allahabad at Lucknow in a writ petition by which the respondents have challenged the constitutional validity of the provisions of Article 16(4A) of the Constitution of India and Rule 8(A) of the UP Government Servants Seniority (Third Amendment) Rules 2007. The High Court, while granting the interim order, quoted herein below, has observed that since in a bunch of writ petitions, the question regarding the constitutional validity of the provisions of Article 16(4A) of the Constitution of India and Rule 8(A) of the UP Government Servants Seniority (Third Amendment) Rules 2007 is already under challenge and the interim order, quoted herein below, has already been passed in those bunch of writ petitions, similar interim order shall also be passed in the present writ application.
(2.) The interim order granted by the High Court runs as under: In the meantime, as an interim measure, we provide that the seniority of the petitioners as existing prior to the enforcement of the U.P. Government Servants Seniority (Third Amendment) Rules, 2007, shall not be disturbed in pursuance of the Rules.
(3.) Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants has drawn our attention to the fact that since the constitutional validity of Article 16(4A) has already been upheld in M. Nagaraj v. Union of India , the writ application itself could not be entertained and in that view of the matter, the question of granting the interim order shall not arise at all. Mr. P.P. Rao, the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents, however, has drawn our attention to an interim order passed in a pending writ petition in which the constitutional validity of Article 16(4A) of the Constitution of India and Rule 8(A) of the UP Government Servants Seniority (Third Amendment) Rules 2007 has been challenged and submitted that the decision of this Court in M. Nagaraj v. Union of India [supra] has already been considered by another division bench of the High Court after explaining the said decision and the interim order in the manner indicated above has been continued. Therefore, Mr. Rao submitted that instead of interfering with the interim order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court, direction may be given to the High Court to dispose of the pending writ application at an early date preferably within 3 months from this date.;